Taylor v. Basye

• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOVEY, J.
• Citation: Taylor v. Basye, 119 Wash. 263, 205 P. 16 (Wash. 1922)
• Decision Date: 23 March 1922
• Docket Number: 16379.
• Parties: TAYLOR v. BASYE.

205 P. 16

119 Wash. 263

TAYLOR v. BASYE.

No. 16379.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 23, 1922

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Clarke County; Bruce Blake, Judge.

Action by J. A. Taylor against J. L. Basye. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Miller Wilkinson & Miller, of Vancouver, for appellant.

Frank H. Hilton, of Portland, Or., for respondent.

HOVEY J.

Appellant brought an unlawful detainer action against the respondent and the trial court sustained a plea in abatement, discharged the jury, and entered judgment for respondent.

The controversy grows out of a lease of real estate and a sale of personal property. On November 1, 1919, appellant leased about 900 acres of land to the respondent for a term of years at an annual rental of $1,000. Respondent paid the first year's rent by giving $500 in cash and his note for the remaining $500. At the same time appellant sold respondent considerable personal property, for which the latter paid $4,000 in cash. Within a few months after the lease was made the parties had difficulty, and at appellant's request they went to the city of Portland Or., where appellant resided, and there entered into an arbitration agreement for the settlement of all their difficulties. Arbitrators were appointed and conducted a hearing and made an award in writing, by the terms of which appellant was to take back certain of the personal property, and was to have possession of a new house upon the premises on April 1, 1920, and pay to respondent a substantial sum in cash. Respondent was to be permitted to stay on the balance of the premises until April 20, 1920, and to retain possession without rental or charge for a period of 10 days after full payment had been made by appellant. It appears from the testimony that appellant so far accepted the award as to take possession of the dwelling house, but he refused to comply with the other terms of the award, and his present action was brought in May, 1920.

It is first contended by appellant that, this being an action of unlawful detainer, the arbitration award cannot be interposed as a defense. Ralph v. Lomber, 3 Wash. 401, 28 P. 760; Phillips v. Port Townsend Lodge, 8 Wash. 529, 36 P. 476; Monroe v. Stayt, 57 Wash. 592, 107 P. 517, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1102; Hutchinson v. Wilson, 54 Wash. 410, 103 P. 474, are cited. These are all cases where outside issues are sought to be brought into the case. This action is one for the recovery of the possession of real property, and a defense which goes solely to the right of possession cannot be said to be without the issues, and in our opinion the portion of this award which is material to this issue raises simply this question.

We come now to consider the effect to be given to the award. This court has held that an agreement for arbitration made in this state is without effect unless it complies with our statute. Dickie Mfg. Co. v. Sound Const. & Eng. Co., 92 Wash 316, 159 P. 129. It is...